What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

Originally posted by NorEaster
Elemental logic just plain demands a fundamental real. You can't build your church on air. Well, you can try, but....

No my friend, it is you who demands a fundamental real. Don't blame logic which is just a word that describes a thought process that you have decided
is best suited to your life based on your experiences.

Keep demanding this fundamental real. Let me know when you have discovered it and everyone else in the world has agreed on it.

I guess that I just believe that reality (the Truth) is too pervasive to be an individual perception. Like my bacteria analogy (above). Maybe not the
best analogy, but like the notion of bacteria as one enormous omnipresent organism, Truth would be literally everywhere and within everything. It
would have to be if it is the Truth, and whatever was proposed to be a verifiable aspect of the Truth would have to have some sort of connection to
what we already know to be absolutely and verifiably true.

Yes, but the trick is that you can only ever access it through "individual perception".
You cannot see the forest when you're a tree in it.
I have no clue what it all is, but I am quite certain it cannot be explained completely through ideations which are a part of our "filter"
(mind).

I guess that I just believe that reality (the Truth) is too pervasive to be an individual perception. Like my bacteria analogy (above). Maybe not the
best analogy, but like the notion of bacteria as one enormous omnipresent organism, Truth would be literally everywhere and within everything. It
would have to be if it is the Truth, and whatever was proposed to be a verifiable aspect of the Truth would have to have some sort of connection to
what we already know to be absolutely and verifiably true.

If a man walked up to you (no one you've ever seen before, and there's nothing remarkable about this man either physically or in how his
presence affects you viscerally) and he told you that he possesses the Truth about life, about reality, about the concept and/or existence of God,
about humanity, and about why you (specifically) exist; what list of questions would you need this man to answer correctly, for you to take him
seriously as someone who just might be the one guy who actually has that Truth?

If a person were to walk up to me with this claim I would not hit him with tests to determine his worthiness, if I had a few moments I would be
curious what he had to say. If, as you state, he claimed to have information pertaining to me specifically I believe I would ask him to start there -
that is, afterall, my favorite subject.

In a few moments it would be clear to me whether or not I was interested. If so and we were in a casual setting I would want to continue, invite him
to a cup of coffee and let him go on. I find the topic of "the secrets to the mystery of life and living" interesting and really do not know too many
who wish to discuss this matter. I have all the time in the world for things that interest me.

Of course if he started by reading scripture and inviting me to join his prayer group I would most likely suddenly remember an appointment I must rush
off to. Though if in the course of his revelation he had a bible passage that was helpful I would not be offended, great truths may come from very
unlikely sources.

Some questions may come to mind in the course of discussion but I don't see using any "triage" to test his worthiness. Depending on the circumstances
though, I may employ a question or two to weed out any looney-tunes and bible-thumpers to bring an abrupt end to the conversation. I would do this
politely, of course.

I did have such an encounter some 30-odd years ago. What the man revealed to me had a lot to do with visualization and creating a desired scenario in
my mind. I have employed that technique throughout my life to obtain some very amazing results. I have had a great life and to a large extent it is
due to a several-hour conversation during such an encounter. I may be ready for my next "lesson." I'm all ears.

Originally posted by NorEaster
It's a good question, and that's why it vexes me as well. True discernment is like good judgment. The highest function of human intellect. So high a
function that it can seem as if intellect isn't even involved.

The only thing left vexing me now, Nor, is the eso and exoteric meaning, of the name you use here. There is something about it I find..troubling, let
me just put it that way, but it's still possible of course that I'm projecting something that isn't real or true, and so I ask the question. Thanks
for clarifying. Just last night it presented itself to me in a dream, and I awoke with a jolt, that name clearly in my mind, even though I'd never
noticed it before, nor found it the least bit unusual or offensive.

P.S. The great real you're asking for, is the unconditioned ground of being, or the formless in back of form, not the mere appearance of transient
forms that are ever changing. The question must be what is the one unchanging, everlasting "real" which never changes, and never dies, out of which,
and into which, and out of which, existence rises and falls, only to rise again, just as we see life do in all of its forms. What is this formless
potential, and can we access it like that man Eckhart Tolle did, or as Adi Da Samraj claimed to, and as Jesus did, and embodied as a universal
principal of eternal life in one form or another.

And if you want a grand unified theory of physics, how do you know, to begin with, that any self consistent description of external physical matter
will bring you any closer to the truth? And again I already told you that it's all the creative product of light in one form or another as an
expression or manifestation of the love of God, in order to make experience possible, but you completely ignored all that, even the physical control
mechanism I offered and indicated could be tested within the framework of modern quantum paradoxes, which you called "philosophy" but it wasn't
philsophy I was discussing but reality.

As you can tell I'm not so very happy with you or with your motives in this very thread, which seem to represent a type of madness, and not a sincere
search for the one great truth at all.

Originally posted by NorEaster
It's a good question, and that's why it vexes me as well. True discernment is like good judgment. The highest function of human intellect. So high a
function that it can seem as if intellect isn't even involved.

The only thing left vexing me now, Nor, is the eso and exoteric meaning, of the name you use here. There is something about it I find..troubling, let
me just put it that way, but it's still possible of course that I'm projecting something that isn't real or true, and so I ask the question. Thanks
for clarifying. Just last night it presented itself to me in a dream, and I awoke with a jolt, that name clearly in my mind, even though I'd never
noticed it before, nor found it the least bit unusual or offensive.

The board name? NorEaster?

When I moved from Boston to the MidWest, I was immediately hit with a culture shock, (these folks are very different than Bostonians) and I guess I
adopted it as a perennial board name in honor of the northeast region where I grew up. I've used it for a solo club music act I gigged after I
arrived here as well. I guess I just kind of like it.

I even wrote a (yet to be published) novel titled Nor'Easter. It's a darkly sardonic literary fiction novel that masquerades as a serial murder
crime story that features crimes associated with the big nor'easter storms we'd get up there in Boston. Great story. I shopped it last year in NYC,
and got some serious nibbles, with a few big agencies reading the manuscript. So I sent 4 nor'easters up to the NYC area to try and get them to
really identify with the story.

I guess it was too subtle. Like Anthony Perkins and that fly that he "wouldn't hurt" at the end of Psycho.
Like those doctors, the agents never noticed any connection.

Oh well. Maybe they liked the blizzard I sent up last week?

(of course, I know better than to think I actually sent those up, but it was pretty funny last winter when they got hit with 4 storms as the agents
were reading that manuscript. I thought it was funny anyway)

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
P.S. The great real you're asking for, is the unconditioned ground of being, or the formless in back of form, not the mere appearance of transient
forms that are ever changing. The question must be what is the one unchanging, everlasting "real" which never changes, and never dies, out of which,
and into which, and out of which, existence rises and falls, only to rise again, just as we see life do in all of its forms. What is this formless
potential, and can we access it like that man Eckhart Tolle did, or as Adi Da Samraj claimed to, and as Jesus did, and embodied as a universal
principal of eternal life in one form or another.

ooooo....missed this P.S. I must've been answering the original when you added this.

The unchanging, everlasting "real" is something that I would have to accept as being real if this man actually possessed it, and explained it to me. I
wouldn't be able to discern this esoteric information's credibility, since what would I use to do that before examining it? If not a series of
questions designed to determine the credibility of the most mundane aspects of his information, then there'd be no way to determine the most elusive
aspects of it. He might be the real deal. What if I simply didn't recognize his credible nature? What if I simply am a normal, average person who has
no inherent capacity to detect such a person, and recognize that he has such information? To be honest, I am a normal, average person that has no
inherent capacity to detect the extraordinary. I admit it. I would really need a way of determining the credibility of this information. I would need
that because I realize that I have no way to determine the credibility of the man. I am just a regular guy.

And if you want a grand unified theory of physics, how do you know, to begin with, that any self consistent description of external physical
matter will bring you any closer to the truth? And again I already told you that it's all the creative product of light in one form or another as an
expression or manifestation of the love of God, in order to make experience possible, but you completely ignored all that, even the physical control
mechanism I offered and indicated could be tested within the framework of modern quantum paradoxes, which you called "philosophy" but it wasn't
philsophy I was discussing but reality.

You can say whatever you feel like saying, but that doesn't make it true. I checked into the photon experiment that you referred to (months ago) and
to be honest, the guy who references it in is new book has taken what that experiment suggests as potential, and has intellectually run off a cliff
with it. The researcher doesn't even do that. Superposition suffers under the enormous weight of its own immediate ramifications, and this is why it's
fringe theory. You certainly don't expect anyone to accept that gathering of inconclusive extrapolations as amounting to a physical control mechanism,
do you? If you do, then you'll be wondering forever why no one lines up behind you.

That light splitter indication means something, but it doesn't mean that the entire structural integrity of physical existence itself is non-existent.
It likely means that more investigation needs to be made into why those specific results occurred, and what that might indicate - given the enormous
depth and breadth of objective data that already exist that really can't be flushed away due to a very small anomalous test result that may or may not
have been responsibly interpreted by one or more who observed what was observed. Surely you've heard the story about the primitive native who
happened upon a lost digital watch. That sort of thing happens in scientific research too.

As you can tell I'm not so very happy with you or with your motives in this very thread, which seem to represent a type of madness, and not a
sincere search for the one great truth at all.

edit on 6-1-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

I can tell that this thread challenges you. I like that it challenges you. I like that it challenges me too. I think that this forum is supposed to
challenge us. I admit that I'm a student. I see nothing wrong with trying to learn. I've read Eckhart Tolle's books (well, two of them), and his
effort to shut down the ego-driven mind that challenges information and seeks specifics within answers that appear purposely vague disturbs me. I
don't think he and I would get along.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was mistaken, and obviously projecting something that wasn't real or true!

And regarding this issue of the truth, it would be surely something of a felt experience, which although it might prompt further investigations for
increasing validation and confirmation, would lead to less and less questions, even no questions at all. It would be complete, something requiring no
addition or subtraction, something whole, without any loss of integrity, and something eternal, and unmovable, what I call a rock of ages.

And I do still think you are suffering from a certain madness, which is a trap almost everyone has fallen into, which may be called "Materialist
Monism". If you're at all interested in anything I've offered, you might want to read a book called "The Self Aware Universe" by Amit Goswami,
and there are some Youtube videos of him being interviewed and offering his insights. He's the one who's posited the idea of "Monistic Idealism"
as the resolution to the quantum paradoxes (as I said I don't have a single original idea of my own).

I would also invite you to consider how Jesus could say "I am the truth" with conscious awareness, and what that might mean or signify, and how this
might be reflected in the parable of the Wealthy Merchant, along with the other parables as metaphors or allegories pointing to "it" from various
angles or perspectives.

I think what we all need in this world, is something a Buddhist named Shunryu Suzuki has termed "the beginners mind" which can be found in his book
"Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" www.amazon.ca...

The reason I suggest this, is that the seeking mind cannot apprehend the truth, especially if that seeking mind is a materialist monist mind.
The other mind, the empty, non-seeking mind, which makes no judgements and assigns no meaning to the "thingness" of the phenomenal world, while
remaining free to choose, and in choosing, take appropriate action in the spirit of love as the will to give of self for the sake of anothers
spiritual or psychological growth and well being, that is the Christ mind, which states "I am the truth". How that would then be communicated is
another matter, and even once communicated or made available for understanding, it's surely glossed over and bypassed by the materialist monist
seeking mind.

Seek and you will find, means a seeking of the heart and soul, not of the mind, which will be stilled to silence once the truth is found.

You still think like an atheist. Perhaps it's time to rethink your own thinking process, and the presuppositions you keep starting with ie: matter is
primary, and the laws of physics the only REAL, whereas I am saying even that isn't the truth, just infrastructure and engineering to create the
framework for the play or the game of experience and interaction, and mutual self discovery.

I really have nothing more to say..!

But thanks for an interesting process, perhaps someone, somewhere got something out of it..

Unless you're referring to the Buddhist Suzuki of "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind", you're assuming again my friend. Amit Goswami, the author of "The
Self Aware Universe", is an accomplished physicist, not a philosopher.

Me too, and thanks for willing to become more open minded, and ready to learn, perhaps even things you didn't know you didn't know, which is where
all truth resides - with what we think we already know, or even what we know we don't know - representing but in infintestimal slice of the sphere of
knowing, imho, an endless journey of never ending wonderment and exploration.

All the best for your own journey into truth may you find whatever it is you seek, and don't be surprised if it's you yourself!

determining the truthiness of a single statement within any formal system is not possible, as has been proven by kurt godel's fameous manhandling of
the Principia Mathematica. its a really fun story, actually, so i will sum it up:

professors whitehead and russell developed a formal system of number theory which was to be a FORTRESS OF TRUTH AND LOGIC. in this system it would be
impossible to construct an untrue statement and any logical argument, when translated into the character-set of PM, could be determined to be true or
false by simple symbol crunching. the distinctive feature of this system which made all of this possible was the fact that at no point could an
argument be consolidated into a novel symbol and then be subsequently used in further processing. in other words: a statement in PM could NEVER
refer to it's SELF.

but then of course, the genius Godel came along and forced the PM to look at itself in the mirror and tell itself that it doesnt exist. his
statement, when translated out of number theory into english looked something like this:

"The sentence 'The sentence is not a statement in English' is not a statement in English."

so, that was that.

you are basically asking the same thing in this thread that bertrand and russell were. and unfortunately, i must conclude that any questions that can
be asked to determine truthiness will never be satisfactory.

BUT! there is hope. the above example shows a very curious aspect of what is generally accepted as an aspect of The Truth. specifically:
self-reference.

the notion of self-reference relies on a nested "holarchy" (ken wilber), as can be read in the above bolded sentence. it is things nested within
things.....all the while referring to the same thing. this is why the self-concept, or the "I", usually walks hand in hand with the notion of
truth.

one last thing about the bolded sentence. if read strictly as a statement of English, it cancels itself out and is literally
uninterpretable. in order to accept the statement as true, as a contradiction of itself, the statement must be interpreted on a level HIGHER THAN
English.

so the truth, then:

- must have application in context of multiple nested domains of reality.
- is only interpretable as "True" from a perspective of "HIGHER THAN".

some sample questions that the truth MUST be able to answer are thus:

How do you close the gap between 'Me' and 'my mind'?
How do you close the gap between 'my mind' and the brain?
How do you close the gap between the brain and a single neuron?
....between a cell and macro-molecular events?
....macro-molecular
....chemical...
....physical....
....non-physical (?!)...
....turtles, all the way down and all the way up....

there should be some type of commonality to the answer to each of these questions. a common thread. a rule of some kind that gets repeated over and
over again but gains new meaning in each new higher context.

the truth, then, does not lie within the systems themselves (nor English, nor PM), but rather, in whatever is their common thread.....and relies
entirely upon whatever HIGHER THAN said system is reading said commonality.

so to parse a universal truth requires a perspective higher than the universe. this is not something that i place beyond the human experience, but it
is unfortunately something that you have been trying to avoid in the duration of this thread.......

I love it how mathematicians can say some things much more clearly, elegantly and precisely than me. To use the actual formulas instead of words would
be even closer to "truth", but not many would understand.

That's also why I chose music as my "research" and communication tool in this state of being, whatever it is. Words are so limited (and
limiting)

Originally posted by tgidkp
determining the truthiness of a single statement within any formal system is not possible, as has been proven by kurt godel's fameous manhandling of
the Principia Mathematica. its a really fun story, actually, so i will sum it up:

professors whitehead and russell developed a formal system of number theory which was to be a FORTRESS OF TRUTH AND LOGIC. in this system it would be
impossible to construct an untrue statement and any logical argument, when translated into the character-set of PM, could be determined to be true or
false by simple symbol crunching. the distinctive feature of this system which made all of this possible was the fact that at no point could an
argument be consolidated into a novel symbol and then be subsequently used in further processing. in other words: a statement in PM could NEVER
refer to it's SELF.

but then of course, the genius Godel came along and forced the PM to look at itself in the mirror and tell itself that it doesnt exist. his
statement, when translated out of number theory into english looked something like this:

"The sentence 'The sentence is not a statement in English' is not a statement in English."

so, that was that.

you are basically asking the same thing in this thread that bertrand and russell were. and unfortunately, i must conclude that any questions that can
be asked to determine truthiness will never be satisfactory.

BUT! there is hope. the above example shows a very curious aspect of what is generally accepted as an aspect of The Truth. specifically:
self-reference.

the notion of self-reference relies on a nested "holarchy" (ken wilber), as can be read in the above bolded sentence. it is things nested within
things.....all the while referring to the same thing. this is why the self-concept, or the "I", usually walks hand in hand with the notion of
truth.

one last thing about the bolded sentence. if read strictly as a statement of English, it cancels itself out and is literally
uninterpretable. in order to accept the statement as true, as a contradiction of itself, the statement must be interpreted on a level HIGHER THAN
English.

so the truth, then:

- must have application in context of multiple nested domains of reality.
- is only interpretable as "True" from a perspective of "HIGHER THAN".

some sample questions that the truth MUST be able to answer are thus:

How do you close the gap between 'Me' and 'my mind'?
How do you close the gap between 'my mind' and the brain?
How do you close the gap between the brain and a single neuron?
....between a cell and macro-molecular events?
....macro-molecular
....chemical...
....physical....
....non-physical (?!)...
....turtles, all the way down and all the way up....

there should be some type of commonality to the answer to each of these questions. a common thread. a rule of some kind that gets repeated over and
over again but gains new meaning in each new higher context.

the truth, then, does not lie within the systems themselves (nor English, nor PM), but rather, in whatever is their common thread.....and relies
entirely upon whatever HIGHER THAN said system is reading said commonality.

so to parse a universal truth requires a perspective higher than the universe. this is not something that i place beyond the human experience, but it
is unfortunately something that you have been trying to avoid in the duration of this thread.......

Do different bloodlines represent a single entity elsewhere in another reality? What is the origin of man? Can we evolve our consciousnesses to think
more clearly, less distracted and become psychic? (This one I already believe is ture but wouldnt mind confimation)

Originally posted by tgidkp
determining the truthiness of a single statement within any formal system is not possible, as has been proven by kurt godel's fameous manhandling of
the Principia Mathematica. its a really fun story, actually, so i will sum it up:

professors whitehead and russell developed a formal system of number theory which was to be a FORTRESS OF TRUTH AND LOGIC. in this system it would be
impossible to construct an untrue statement and any logical argument, when translated into the character-set of PM, could be determined to be true or
false by simple symbol crunching. the distinctive feature of this system which made all of this possible was the fact that at no point could an
argument be consolidated into a novel symbol and then be subsequently used in further processing. in other words: a statement in PM could NEVER
refer to it's SELF.

but then of course, the genius Godel came along and forced the PM to look at itself in the mirror and tell itself that it doesnt exist. his
statement, when translated out of number theory into english looked something like this:

"The sentence 'The sentence is not a statement in English' is not a statement in English."

so, that was that.

Yes. That certainly was. I appreciate this very simple level of specificity. A+B=C therefore C-B=A It's a closed loop, and since the
characters involved lack any further contextual identity, the statement is logically airtight. If you add any contextual identity to the characters in
the statement (let's try A = Coffee, B = Chocolate, and C = Mocha) , the statement become a recipe and an impossible to accomplish task. The addition
of contextual identity has turned a logically balanced "yes" into an obvious "no" that doesn't even possess relative application in a contextual
environment where coffee, chocolate and mocha exist.

I like that story. Thanks.

you are basically asking the same thing in this thread that bertrand and russell were. and unfortunately, i must conclude that any questions
that can be asked to determine truthiness will never be satisfactory.

However, I'm not looking for a question that will determine truthiness. I am looking for a suite of cross-confirming questions that will force each
question to be true in relative juxtaposition with one another, while being capable of truthful and confirmable co-existence with what we have already
proven to be true about the verifiable aspects of reality. This is why philosophical questions won't work, even though it may be that the Truth
itself focuses more fully on such ascendant matters.

I get the feeling that some have assumed that I either see no value in such "higher" Truth, or that I don't believe that such transcendence exists.
I absolutely believe in the transcendent human being, and believe that this is the goal for each of us. That said, I believe that such transcendence
is not something that the average individual can discern in another individual, and I certainly would not think that such discernment can be made
through a series of questions. Questions are mundane and material. They work best when they deal with determining what is mundane and material.

If this man possesses "the Truth" about the reality that we inhabit, then some of that Truth must connect to what we know about the structural
nature of what is real. After all, the Truth about humanity (what it is and why it exists) must involve linkage to the specific corporeal aspects of
the human being, since the corporeal human being exists and it exists in a way that can be objectively determined. There must be objective information
that presses up against information that we have definitely determined to be true, and this objective information would (if true) dovetail perfectly
with the known information, and most likely, open the door to new and previously unknown information via direct extrapolation and logical
ramification.

Such a man would (should) be able to provide this information, or at least prove that he can't.

BUT! there is hope. the above example shows a very curious aspect of what is generally accepted as an aspect of The Truth. specifically:
self-reference.

the notion of self-reference relies on a nested "holarchy" (ken wilber), as can be read in the above bolded sentence. it is things nested within
things.....all the while referring to the same thing. this is why the self-concept, or the "I", usually walks hand in hand with the notion of
truth.

I'm familiar with Arthur Koestler's holon theory, and have always limited it to the application of Identity and the role of Identity as a survival
imperative within the larger issue of progressive structural development and matrixing for the sake of prolonging the unique identifiable event. The
establishment of "self" does involve the Identity survival imperative, so I guess that Ken Wilbur applies it to philosophy. I haven't really looked
very deeply into Ken Wilbur's work.

one last thing about the bolded sentence. if read strictly as a statement of English, it cancels itself out and is literally
uninterpretable. in order to accept the statement as true, as a contradiction of itself, the statement must be interpreted on a level HIGHER THAN
English.

See, now this is where I get lost. This HIGHER LEVEL is very easy to refer to. In fact, it's referred to constantly these days, and by people who
completely disagree with one another as to the specific nature of this HIGHER LEVEL. That being the case, how can anyone who isn't an initiate (or
who is an initiate within the wrong discipline - if there is a wrong discipline, I guess) ever hope to know what the hell this HIGHER LEVEL is, or
whether it's anything at all (well, beyond a secret handshake between the metaphysical equivalent of nod-nod-wink-wink frat boys) History is infested
with secret clubs, and human beings are enamored with being "on the inside" of privilege or knowledge or all-access-backstage or whatever it is that
can make them feel like they're "more" than they'd be if they weren't "on the inside". This has been the problem, and certainly won't
contribute to the solution.

I know that you can't concretely explain to me what this HIGHER LEVEL means in a way that I'll be able to understand, but I just wanted to describe
what it appears like to someone (like me) who isn't, and has never been, "on the inside" of whatever it is that the rest of you folks are inside
of.

so the truth, then:

- must have application in context of multiple nested domains of reality.
- is only interpretable as "True" from a perspective of "HIGHER THAN".

So, then, you've just eliminated the reason for this effort. The average intelligent and aware individual on this planet hasn't got this perspective
and wouldn't even be able to accurately describe what this perspective consists of. So much for that.

some sample questions that the truth MUST be able to answer are thus:

How do you close the gap between 'Me' and 'my mind'?
How do you close the gap between 'my mind' and the brain?
How do you close the gap between the brain and a single neuron?
....between a cell and macro-molecular events?
....macro-molecular
....chemical...
....physical....
....non-physical (?!)...
....turtles, all the way down and all the way up....

there should be some type of commonality to the answer to each of these questions. a common thread. a rule of some kind that gets repeated over and
over again but gains new meaning in each new higher context.

Good questions, but how does the average person determine the cross-confirmation between the answers? The questions require answers that are
hopelessly inaccessible to the average intelligent person. Any theoretical physicist could bury a person (me, definitely, would be buried) under piles
of jargon and references that would quickly become a milky wash of useless verbiage. Maybe, in front of a panel of scientists, but I don't see anyone
in a hotel lobby or an airport, or a sports bar being equipped to determine the internal or relative accuracy of an answer to any of those questions.
And even in front of a panel of scientists, I could see the panel itself devolving into disagreement over the accuracy of the answers, especially if
they were seen as potentially credible.

These are questions that have been festering for centuries within the minds of the academic elite. I can't see them being answered to anyone's
satisfaction by a man that has yet to establish his own information's inherent credibility.

the truth, then, does not lie within the systems themselves (nor English, nor PM), but rather, in whatever is their common thread.....and
relies entirely upon whatever HIGHER THAN said system is reading said commonality.

so to parse a universal truth requires a perspective higher than the universe. this is not something that i place beyond the human experience, but it
is unfortunately something that you have been trying to avoid in the duration of this thread.......

Whatever exists as real must touch what we already know to be real. This is the one fact that I seem to be having to reiterate. I asked my wife last
night, "Am I being too vague about the fact that real exists, and that what is real must have direct linkage to both what we know to be real and what
we have yet to know to be real?" She looked the thread over, and seemed satisfied that I've been redundantly clear about this one very specific
point, so I don't know how it is that I'm failing in my effort to establish this one, seemingly simple, requirement. And yet, here I am, again,
insisting that the narrow sliver of connectivity between what we know to be true and what we have yet to understand is also true, is where the 5
questions I'm looking for will be found.

Of course, her take was that I should've known better than to expect more than a competition to erupt, but she's got her own way of seeing human
beings. I'm a bit more naive than she is, and that's why she handles the bills and the creditors.

Originally posted by MrVortex
I love it how mathematicians can say some things much more clearly, elegantly and precisely than me. To use the actual formulas instead of words would
be even closer to "truth", but not many would understand.

That's also why I chose music as my "research" and communication tool in this state of being, whatever it is. Words are so limited (and
limiting)

Music is my primary means of expression too. I've been a musician and songwriter for nearly 40 years now. 25 years professional. The lift from a
purposely prolonged and relentlessly tortured minor to an expansive major is a release that no collection of words or images can convey. It's
orgasmic. I stuttered horribly for the first half of my life, and my fingers were my tools of expression. Stringed instruments. I still play hours
each day, even without that career to concern about anymore.

Bacteria is considered to be many strains of single cell microbes that collect within (literally) everything, and function to either promote survival
or impose elimination - as the case may be. Scientists performed some experiments a while back and discovered that isolated bacteria responded to the
introduction (within a separate isolated chamber containing the same strain of bacteria) of an anti-bacterial agent, producing defenses for that
anti-bacterial agent. These were bacteria cells that had never been exposed to this agent, and yet they adjusted to this agent after their
compatriots had been exposed within their own isolated environment.

This made some researchers assume that the bacteria under attack alerted the others via (who knows) some unknown means of communication. Primitive
telepathy perhaps? Of course, that's absurd to suggest, but still, why would the isolated bacteria be affected by the exposure of other isolated
bacteria to an anti-bacterial agent? A few of the researchers began getting a cold feeling as a new potential crept up on them.

Maybe bacteria isn't many strains of single cell microbes that collect within everything? Maybe bacteria is the largest single organism on this entire
planet, and the physical structure that it has is just very different than what we've come to believe as unitary physical structure? Suddenly, the
battle to keep up with bacteria's ability to counter anti-bacterial medicines and chemical agents isn't so mysterious after all? If addressed as one
enormous host organism, one that we all live off and feed when we finally stop living, then maybe our effort to fight bacteria is what doesn't make
sense.

I never did thank you for sharing this bit of truth here my friend. Perhaps if we acted like bacteria to one another, we too would be as resilient.
This was a wonderful insight, and I hope more caught it.

Originally posted by NorEaster
If the entire human race could possibly allow this to be Truth in their visceral sense of what is true, then they would inevitably demand to be
allowed to know what the objective criteria is to honestly determine what that "real" is. What derails people is that they've come to the unsettling
realization that what they feel they must believe is daily contradicted by what they can't help but to know. This has caused reality itself to seem
subjective. Given that, nothing is dependable anymore. Not truth, not morality, not honor, not integrity, not anything.

There were two Brothers who lived on an isolated road in central Nigeria. On one side of the road one brother kept a farm growing yams. On the other
side of the road the other brother kept a farm growing sugar cane. Each day they would meet for supper and have candied yams in peace and harmony. One
day Elegua* came passing through the road. Seeing the two farms he thought to go up and ask for a bite to eat. To the farmer of the yams he went up
and knocked on the door. When the farmer answered and his request was made, the farmer seeing his beggarly appearance, shooed him off empty handed.
So, he walked across the road to the other farmers house. There he was greeted with similar treatment. Incensed, Elegua plotted away to humble the
Brothers.

The next morning Elegua painted one half of his body blue, and the other red. In one hand he carried a tambourine and the other he beat a small drum.
In this manner he walked down the road while the brothers were working their fields. He shook the tambourine with a fury and beat the drum like a
madman all the way down the road until he was out of sight of the two brothers.

After he had passed the two brothers ran to the road. The yam farmer asked his brother, "did you see that mad red man beating a drum?". The other
brother replied "your eyesight is failing! it was a blue man waving a tambourine!". And so the two Brothers argued back and forth each asserting their
point of view was the correct one until their blood boiled to the point that they killed each other.

* Elegua is the Nigerian deity of the roads and a noted trickster. He often dresses as a beggar to test Mans charity.

Originally posted by NorEaster
A bald-faced lie becomes just another point of view.

My first wife was a Schizophrenic. She is absolutely bat # crazy but she has a great heart, which is what made me overlook her mental faculties. What
made me leave her was one day she had an episode and took off from the house. The next morning I went to find her. Having no luck I returned to the
house where I was greated by the Sherrifs department. She had went and reported that I beat her up. I knew for a fact I had not touched a hair on her
head, but she was adamant that I did. Thanks to the crazy domestic violence laws in NC, I spent 3 days in jail even though there was no evidence what
so ever of any harm done to her. To this day, she swears I beat her up. Only I know she had suffered a psychological break that night. Her reality is
one thing, mine another.

Originally posted by NorEaster
One "real". The one that actually exists and that set the foundation for all that has since emerged in withering complexity and sophistication. That
one "real" - the Truth. Convince them that it does actually exist, and that it can be determined, and then let them work it out from there.

Through out our history we have always sought the one truth. When ever someone has gained the power to do so, the have made that one truth the law.
Much blood has been spilled over the one truth. In my opinion, humanity will become humane when it realises there isn't one truth other than that
there isn't one truth. Accept that and deal with each other with love and forgiveness. Otherwise, we will continue to kill for one truth or
another.

I love this conversation my friend. You have a way of getting people thinking and talking. Even this thread itself is yet another version of the
truth.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.